The complexity of communications test devices has increased with the complexity of the instruments and systems they are designed to analyze. This additional complexity has rendered ineffective the former dials and buttons of prior test devices. Others have attempted to propose graphical user interfaces for test devices. Generally, Graphical User Interfaces (GUI) are well known in the art and a shift in the computer and related industries from word based interfaces to graphic interfaces has occurred in some applications. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,384,911 to Bloomfield discloses a GUI that can be used in conjunction with word based systems. The interface does not however provide for graphical representation a physical device.
At least one prior art testing device incorporates GUI technology and is directed to a method and system for graphically depicting and testing components in a data processing system. U.S. Pat. No. 5,305,437 to Fritze et al. discloses a testing method and system as a part of a personal computer's diagnostic control program. As disclosed, a graphic display is coupled to a polling means that determines the configuration of the processing system being tested. The graphic depiction is displayed in response to a determination of the configuration of the processing system. A testing program selectively tests a particular hardware component to determine if the component is defective. In response to identifying a defective component, a graphic display control alters the graphic presentation of the defective component displayed on the screen to alert the technician of the defect. Although the Fritze et al. disclosure provides a testing and interface system adapted for use with personal computers, the disclosed method and system has several significant limitations. For example, the disclosed Fritze et al. method and system does not provide for a menu driven interface that is directly responsive to program commands and pertinent data entry. The disclosed Fritze et al. method and system merely provides a convenient way to display the results of a test operation. Moreover, the disclosure of the Fritze et al. patent does not teach or suggest a method and system that permits the display of simultaneous alarm and status information or the configuration of a test device.
Others have attempted to produce a fully integrated test device for the multitude of communications signal protocols in use today but have routinely utilized inadequate user interfaces. An early attempt to produce a unitary communications line tested was proposed by Harris et al. in U.S. Pat. No. 3,956,601. Harris discloses an early transmission line test device which includes a transmitter section to generate test signals, a receive section to capture test signals, and a display to report data. The Harris test device tests for various parameter conditions including envelope delay, noise, and distortion but each test modality takes place sequentially, with a selection mechanism to advance the instrument from one test to the next. A significant limitation of this disclosure is that the interface used is complex and cumbersome, significantly impeding the utility of the device.
A further attempt was proposed by Szymborski et al. in U.S. Pat. No. 5,121,342. Szymborski discloses a multi-mode test device which evaluates analog and digital telecommunications signals such as T1 and ISDN protocol signals but does not include the capability of processing high speed optical signals. Szymborski utilizes a single programmable gate array to provide an interface for different transmission protocols. The line interface can be reconfigured to accommodate a different line protocol through operator input. However, the Szymborski system is limited to processing one signal at a time with its gate array devoted to one particular protocol of interest. As a result, the user interface of Szymborski does not include the capability to display multiple line protocols simultaneously.
The difficulties and limitations suggested in the preceding are not intended to be exhaustive but rather among the many which may tend to reduce the effectiveness and user satisfaction with prior communications line test devices and methods and the like. Other noteworthy problems may also exist; however, those presented above should be sufficient to demonstrate that prior communications line test devices and methods appearing in the past will admit to worthwhile improvement.